Unfit for Trail, But NRA Protected

me: NYT NEWS ALERT: Judge Finds Jared L. Loughner, Accused in Tucson Shooting, Unfit to Stand Trial
Friend: unfit to stand trial!?!?!
he's just too crazy!?
oh good. then let's bring up the gun debate and how the hell he even got one if he's too crazy to go to trial
me: amen
Friend: how was he not seen as unfit to buy a gun?

Gun control is a touchy issue in the United States for any number of reasons. However the powerful National Rifle Association is one of the major contributors to the vitriol that dominates what should be a logical debate.

The right to have guns (well, the right to bear arms in a militia is delineated in the Amendment, but who wants to split hairs here?) is mentioned in the US Bill of Rights. Cool, we should have some guns. But should everyone get a gun?

Some will say any regulation of gun ownership is a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Those people are wackados. Some say guns should be taken off the streets completely in that they are actually not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Those folks aren't winning any friends (or much support from the Court).

However, a vast majority of Americans in a poll I just made up (but also I remember seeing in the aftermath of the Shooting in [fill in the blank]) support logical safeguards against people like Loughner getting their hands on guns.

I am not getting into the nitty gritty of what kind of guns should be on the street or gun show loopholes or even the interstate issues of people being arrested for lawfully owning guns in one state and being arrested for them in others. This is simply a statement of fact: people who are crazy should never be able to purchase a gun or ammunition. Period. End of Story.

But I am sure, in the coming months, perhaps in a year or so, the NRA will set up shop in Tuscon and talk about American freedoms and the importance of liberty. I am just not sure there will be much discussion about Justice for All.